Before taking this class, I had done some reading on my own on the issues gender and LGBT equity in STEM, and so I was very interested in the readings for this week to learn more on equity for students of color. In the article by Barton and Yang, they discuss how for Miguel, the field of science felt disconnected from his Puerto Rican identity. He describes how science is only for smart people who are somehow discovered. Overall, his description of how one becomes a scientist reveals how that information is not open for everyone. Seeing science as a valid career path is then heavily dependent on a student’s community at home and the way educators perceive the student. This was highlighted by the fact that none of his teachers ever encouraged Miguel to consider college, let alone science. What especially stood out to me was the discussion of Miguel’s high school guidance counselor keeping him from taking science courses. I wonder how common it is for students to be barred from science and math by counselors who don’t believe in them? Something similar happened to my girlfriend when she was in high school. While not caused by race in her case, her guidance counselor decided that the only hope she had for college was art school, and so the counselor barred her from taking math classes or upper level science classes, even though she was interested in taking these classes. The fact that high school counselors have the power to completely close off certain subjects to students is incredibly concerning. One other point made by the authors that stood out to me was the following: “The “sterile” image of science does not encompass other cultures nor does it project friendly accessibility. These images of science as a Western entity are directly tied to the “culture of power.”” (pg. 876) The description of the field of science as sterile is something that I have seen multiple times now as it also came up in the prior reading I’ve done on the experiences of women and LGBT people with science.
Moving to the paper by Carlone, Scott, and Lowder, the discussion about the figured world of traditional schooling really revealed how schooling is set up to prioritize and reward students of certain backgrounds. In the example of Mr. Campbell’s classroom, they highlighted how compliance was valued above all else. The fact that his top students (from his perspective) were white and east Asian girls was then consistent with cultural stereotypes of quiet obedience. In the case of William, who was able to take on a compliant nature in this sixth grade class, the authors note that Mr. Campbell tended to describe him in feminine ways, which would be consistent with associating compliance with femininity. But William was not considered to be one of the best students by Mr. Campbell. I would have to wonder if the perceived gender nonconformity of his personality, especially in terms of being seen as unusual for Latino boys in particular, would be a major cause of not being recognized as one of the top science students in the class as he had been in fourth grade. While he was compliant in terms of his role as a student, he was not compliant in traditional masculinity, at least from his teacher’s perspective. The value placed on compliance was particularly harmful to Aaliyah, who ended up being sorted into the “loud black girl” stereotype by Mr. Campbell. What was really striking was the fact that Mr. Campbell stated he was too nice to his students because he didn’t want to be that white male teacher, which really revealed that even with good intentions, a more rigorous self-evaluation is necessary for teachers to consider whether cultural bias is affecting our teaching. The article was not totally negative though, as the earlier discussion of Ms. Wolfe’s class was very encouraging. With her reform-based teaching style, curiosity, asking questions, and working well with others was prioritized in the science classroom. This teaching style worked very well for all three students followed by the case study, and it was notable for encouraging more scientist-like activity by students. One question I did have about Ms. Wolfe’s teaching is the effect it had for quieter students. As she encouraged students to engage verbally with each other, I was wondering if the teaching style was stressful for shy kids.
Finally, going to the article by Bang and Marin, I hadn’t really considered the issue of nature-culture in these terms. They discuss how typical settled ways of discussing nature treat humans as separate from nature. Through traditional indigenous ways of knowing (IWOK), humans are recognized as a part of nature. The authors then discuss students taking part in a summer program as well as walks with family. They highlight the use of Miami and Anishinabe languages to break down the time-space settler-colonial conception of Indigenous language as past and English as present. One thought I had, that I see Ashwin also discussed, is that the use of Indigenous languages and IWOK should be taught to white students. It is white kids who are most easily able to grow up ignorant to Indigenous culture.
References:
Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204
Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<871::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-9
Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21150
Mieke: The authors of the Miguel paper describe science as having the image of being “sterile” and a white male Western field. Given that you have read more widely on the subject than me, I was wondering where those images are believed to have come from. Is it school, popular culture or both?
Mieke – I thought your unpacking of the articles to be extremely useful to understanding the structures at play within each of the articles. I am wondering how you see all of the issues within the article influencing the actual learning of students? I think it is important to focus on the structures, but I also am interested to see how you conceptualize the learning of students within each of these articles.
I also agree that white students should encounter the language of Native peoples… especially since we use their languages to name towns, schools, etc. presently.
Mieke, I liked your discussion of Miguel’s high school experience and your discussion of counselors in general. In one of my previous EDTHP classes, we talked a lot about equity in education. Specifically, we learned about high school entrance tests that are allegedly entirely “merit based” that allow students from any SES, background, race, etc. have the chance of getting into a top high school. However, at many inner-city schools, students don’t know about these tests and the school counselors at these schools discourage their students from taking the tests, because “those schools aren’t for our kids”. This seemed similar to Miguel’s situation with taking science classes.
Hi Mieke!
I wasn’t aware about the ability of high school counselors to exercise control over what other students can study. This did alarm me a little bit. If counselors do wield this much power it’ll be interesting to analyse the identities of these counselors and if the perception of the culture of power in science stems from conversations that students have with them. Certainly, in Miguel’s case and your girlfriend’s, it does seem to stem from there.
When you mentioned LGBT identities in science, it got me thinking about terminologies in science and the presentation of science as a heteronormative enterprise. Even in simple electronics, the branding of complimentary parts of plugs and wires as ‘male’ or ‘female’ and the notion that one can only connect ‘male to female’ subconsciously propogates an alignment of science and engineering with heteronormativity.
Gendering school subjects is another huge problem that lies at the undercurrent of how women are distanced from science. Especially, in conservative societies, there is an active push (I have seen this to be true especially with high school as maturity starts appearing) for boys to engage in science and sports and girls to engage in arts and language, with the exception perhaps of biology. I think it’s sad that this has continued to happen well into the 21st century. Powers of culture are really hard to break.
Mieke! I really enjoyed reading your discussion on the readings. Your thoughts on the Barton and Yang article make me consider how the issue of representation within science and science related fields is compounded. We have a culture of science that has historically excluded those from minority populations, whether this is due to race, gender, sexuality, religion etc., and thus provides few diverse role models, additionally, due to this history, schools and educators continue to teach in a way that reinforces the perspectives of a sterile science that discusses topics only through the lens of the ‘white male’ perspective. Naturally, this causes those with the most prior enculturation to “rise to the top” of the class so to speak and dismisses the abilities of those that view the discipline from a different lens. Regardless of talent or passion, there is a continual uphill battle for the minority. I wonder if looking at this issue from not only a ‘how can we make science more accessible’ tactic within schooling (and counselling?), but ‘how can science as a discipline become a strength in differences community’ where diverse perspectives and identities is a strength, not something to be suppressed.